Month / January 2024

by daviddawson462742281

Uniting the Gentile Church as They Face the Elder Brother

Introduction

            In this article, I explore the innovation of the Towards Jerusalem Council II – its proponents and accomplishments. I also look at factors that led to change as well as barriers that threatened to impede the work of TJCII. During this process, I was able to integrate some principles of diffusion and innovation research. My hope is that the research of TJCII may yield lessons from what worked in the past. And I desire to discover key challenges related to diffusion where innovation research may be helpful.

Who Was the Change Agent?

The initial visionary of the TJCII movement was Marty Waldman, rabbi of Baruch HaShem Messianic congregation in Dallas, Texas. Waldman’s parents were holocaust survivors who immigrated to the U.S. after the war (Psalm133, 2017). In the 1960s Waldman had a radical and unexpected conversion during the Jesus Movement. He had been taught all his life that the New Testament was a source of antisemitism and never had any interest in reading it. However, one day he decided to investigate the New Testament and found that it was an entirely Jewish book. Waldman concluded that the only controversial aspect of the New Testament for the Jewish people was whether Jesus/Yeshua was in fact the long-awaited Messiah. The more he read he became convinced by the Holy Spirit that Yeshua was in fact the Jewish Messiah. Understandably this event was a horrible shock to Waldman’s parents who felt their son had chosen the path of ultimate betrayal to his family and the Jewish people. But Waldman did not waver in his decision and ended up enrolling in an Evangelical Bible college. Upon graduation he began his ministry as part of the nascent Messianic Jewish movement of which his story is representative (Psalm133, 2017).

What Was the Change?

Waldman would go on to pioneer Baruch HaShem Messianic Synagogue and rise to a place of leadership in the Messianic Movement (Baruch HaShem Messianic Synagogue, n.d.). In 1995, he was preparing a teaching he would give at that year’s Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations annual conference (TJCII, 2010). His text was Acts 15 which describes the Jerusalem council that dealt with the issue of Gentile inclusion in the Body of Messiah. Waldman felt the Lord speaking to him regarding His desire for “the full coming together of Jewish and Gentile believers” through a second council of the ekklesia (TJCII, 2010). At the first Jerusalem council the Jewish believers extended a generous welcome to the Gentile converts imposing the minimum requirements, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you” (New International Version, 2011, Ac. 15:28). In Waldman’s vision, 

The second Council will be a gathering of both Jews and Gentiles, fully accepting one another within the one Body of Jesus the Messiah (Yeshua haMa-shiach). In such a gathering, the Gentile leaders would recognize the Jewish believers in Jesus, personally and corporately, as an integral part of the church while remaining as contiguous members of the Jewish Community and indeed as those representing the elder brother who had been given the first place (Rom. 1:16). Since at least the fourth century C. E., the Christian Church had not allowed the expression of a Jewish identity within the body, excluding any expression of Jewish identity and prohibiting all forms of Jewish practice by Jewish believers in Jesus, the Son of God (TJCII, 2010). 

This reconciliation would not be simply Gentile and Jewish believers accepting each other, but an acknowledgement and honoring by the Gentiles of the unique place of the Jews. This represents a complete reversal of the contempt and pride with which the younger brother had treaded the elder brother, not heeding Paul’s warning that the branches not boast over the root (Rom. 11:18). According to TJCII literature, “Such a restoration of the Jewish believers to their rightful place would enable them to restore the God-given calling of the Jewish people to be a blessing to the nations and would encourage the Messianic Jewish community to preserve the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant and to observe the traditions of their fathers” (TJCII, 2010). 

TJCII affirms the existence of many initiatives of Christian repentance for all expressions of antisemitism which provoked persecution, pogroms, and eventually the holocaust (TJCII, 2010). TJCII also recognizes calls for Christian repentance from the distortion of Scripture resulting from not seeking the original meaning in Hebraic context. The matter that has been ignored by other initiatives, however, is the rejection of the Jewish believers in Yeshua by the Gentile church (TJCII, 2010). It is the healing of this ancient wound that TJCII feels called of God to work towards. 

New as well was the vision of TJCII regarding the implications of the restoration of the one new humanity vision of Ephesians 2:14-18. Its participants proposed that this movement may be “tapping into the mystery of the ages” described in Ephesians 3 (TJCII, 2010). As Gentile Christians come to understand themselves as sharers with the believing Jewish remnant, a great mystery was being revealed (New International Version, 2011, Eph. 3:6). This mystery is “the manifold wisdom of God” which is to be “made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms” (New International Version, 2011, Eph. 3:10) according to the eternal purpose of God fulfilled in Christ. 

Proponents of the TJCII vision also believed its fulfillment could lead to a major advance in evangelism. After all, it was after the declaration of the original Jerusalem council that God “opened wide the floodgates of Gentile evangelism for Paul and his companions” (TJCII, 2010). The harvest among the Gentiles came after the message that they did not have to convert to Judaism to enter the Body of Messiah. TJII proponents hoped that God would pour out a new anointing for harvest among the Jews as the true message of the gospel was restored and communicated to them. They felt that the Jewish acceptance of Messiah was so exciting because of Paul’s question, “If their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (New International Version, 2011, Rom. 11:15). The reconciliation of Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ would be a realization of Jesus’ prayer: “that all of them may be one (…) so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (New International Version, 2011, Jn. 17:21). Thus, the hope of TJCII was that Jewish-Christian reconciliation would not only release a great move of evangelism but also of “restoration of justice among the divided peoples of the world” (TJCII, 2010). 

Diffusion research identifies different attributes of innovation, one of which is relative advantage, which can be measured in terms of economics, social prestige, convenience, and satisfaction (Rogers, 2003). According to diffusion theory, the most pertinent attribute to convince a constituency should be determined. TJCII is an ecumenical initiative, and it is challenging to convince people that there is an advantage in participating in inter-confessional dialogue, worship, and service. 

Most Christians find it challenging enough to be faithfully practicing members of their own churches. 

Observability is another attribute of innovation: the level to which the target constituency can observe its positive characteristics (Rogers, 2003). In our post-covid urban existence, the observability of innovation in human lives is invaluable due to our isolation. The fruits of reconciliation work must be observable. In a secular society that relegates religious experience to the private sphere, the compelling fruits of religious practice are scarce and therefore even more valuable. 

The research of diffusion networks is particularly relevant for promoting inter-confessional Christian engagement (Rogers, 2003). It is crucial to discern the factors that result in links within ecumenical networks. What factors cause church leadership and laity to cross denominational boundaries to build relationships with Christians of other traditions? The vision of TJCII is highly innovative and ambitious, and it originated in a US-American culture with a high pro-innovation bias (Rogers, 2003). A vision that pretends to bring reconciliation to peoples across the globe must be wary of the tendency of innovators to think other cultures will perceive innovation the same way they do. Essential to overcoming the pro-innovation bias is “Taking into account the people’s perceptions of an innovation, rather than the technologists’” (Rogers, 2003). An innovation that represents itself as driving towards increased productivity and expansion may clash with the value of preserving tradition and lifestyle. 

When the gospel was first introduced into the world of Greek learning and culture, Christians “adopted the terms of their opponents and detractors” (Sanneh, 2009). “Old ways of thought and life” were brought into the church by influential converts such as Justin Martyr and Augustine of Hippo (Sanneh, 2009). The triumph of Christianity in the West is evidence of the church’s ability to appropriate “the requisite cultural materials to express the gospel” (Sanneh, 2009). However, the West would ultimately claim exclusive possession of the gospel and identify itself as the exclusive ekklesia. To correct this, TJCII’s vision aligns with the Pauline pluralism described by Sanneh (2009) in which God has no favorites. In line with Sanneh’s (2009) vision as well, TJCII declares that all cultures possess the “breath of God’s favor”, and therefore none should feel inferior or illegitimate. 

Who Were the Opinion Leaders?

One of the first Gentile leaders to embrace TJCII was my father John Dawson, who founded the International Reconciliation Coalition (IRC) in 1990. Dawson wrote two books on reconciliation (Dawson, 1989; Dawson, 1994), identifying fourteen foundational categories of human conflict, among them generation, gender, class, ethnicity, and nationality. But it soon became evident to TJCII participants that the divisions in the church must be addressed before any other areas of human conflict (TJCII, 2010). In 1995, Dawson was approached by Messianic Jewish leader Dr. Dan Juster who challenged him to “form a network of Gentile Christian leaders who would respond to the emergence of the Messianic congregations” (TJCII, 2010). Juster (2010) explained that after many years a historic reconciliation had taken place among the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC) and the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA). This meant that a credible representative Messianic Jewish leadership could now engage with global prayer leaders involved in reconciliation. One key insight shared by Juster and Dawson was the connection between the Jewish-Gentile reconciliation initiatives and many parallel initiatives dealing with wounds of indigenous peoples from Christian colonial civilizations and institutions (TJCII, 2010). 

Dawson and Juster began promoting this vision of TJCII and were generally well received. Soon they understood the need to involve not only free church movements but the historic churches, seeing that healing the Jew-Gentile wound through Christ was fundamental to all parts of His body. And this was possible for the first time since the first century A.D. because a community like that of the Nazarenes was now recognizable. Soon after when Juster met Marty Waldman and presented the vision, the movement found its catalyst. Waldman’s personal story, present position, and prophetic vision gave authenticity to this emergent reconciliation initiative (TJCII, 2010). 

Another key opinion leader who joined TJCII was Catholic theologian Peter Hocken, who contacted Juster a few months after his encounter with Dawson (TJCII, 2010). Hocken presented Juster with his book The Glory and the Shame (2021), that expressed that the divisions that plagued church history could only be healed when the foundational issue of the rejection of the Messianic Jewish communities in the first centuries A.D. Initially Waldman and those who first embraced the vision believed it would simply be about recruiting participants from the Evangelical-Pentecostal world to meet with Messianic Jews in Jerusalem (Hocken, 2007). It was Hocken (2007) who, early on, pointed out that TJCII could not convene a council but could call for governing church representatives to do so. He believed delegates from the historical churches would not join an initiative that thought it could call a Council itself. It was Hocken who suggested using the word Toward Jerusalem Council II, indicating the primary importance of the ancient historic churches directly connected to the councils that had repudiated the Jewish believers of the ekklesia (Hocken 2008). Soon Anglican Canon Brian Cox joined TJCII and the vision became more ambitious – to seek leaders of all denominations and churches. This meant TJCII would have to maintain its convictions while working for unity amidst Evangelical-Catholic and Evangelical-Ecumenical controversies. This inevitably meant that TJCII was a project for a lifetime not a single event to happen anytime soon. It was clearly necessary to have a representative from the Orthodox church, which it found in Father Vasile Mihoc from Sibiu, Romania in 2003 (Hocken, 2008). Father Hocken passed away in 2018, but he testified that in the decades he served TJCII the presence of the Jewish believers had always changed the nature of meetings between Christians of different traditions (Hocken 2008). 

According to Hocken (2008), the greatest challenge for the Catholic and Orthodox churches was confessing the sins of the past. This attitude has correlations in the concept of relative advantage in innovation research – the degree to which the new idea is perceived as superior to the idea that preceded it (Rogers, 2008). One way some systems – including religious ones – deals with change is to adopt preventative innovations (Rogers, 2008). For example, a Catholic or Mainline Protestant TJCII advocate could promote the vision as something to be adopted to avoid the probability of an unwanted future event (Rogers 2008). For ancient the ancient churches this unwanted event could the loss of membership among younger generations, or losing its voice in society. Reconciliation initiatives can help mitigate against the damaging accusations levelled against churches related to the era of colonialism. All Christian churches have dark areas of the past, some of which have never been acknowledged and repented of. Ideally the impetus for such repentance would not be an outsider coming with a message of accusation, but an insider who identifies with past sins in sincere humility. 

In promoting reconciliation between the divided parts of the church, research on the innovation-decisionprocess is helpful (Rogers, 2003). This process begins with the knowledge stage, when an individual or system is exposed to an innovation. Ecumenism is not a high priority for most Christian churches, much less reconciliation with the Jewish people. Some Liberal Protestants do not see Messianic Jews as “real” Jews, and since Vatican II, the Catholic church does not promote missionary efforts towards converting Jews (Ioniţă, 2017). A look at popular Christian book titles shows that the church does not prioritize the importance of the Messianic Jewish movement. The need for church unity is real, but the awareness of such a need must first be generated. Being strategic in terms of communication is key because people generally expose themselves to ideas that agree with the interests, needs, and attitudes they already have (Rogers, 2003). Mass media channels are relatively more useful at the knowledge stage, and therefore effective in creating initial awareness. But interpersonal channels must be introduced immediately as potential participants enter the persuasion stage (Rogers, 2003).

According to Hocken, the first significant barrier for Evangelical and Pentecostal TJCII participants was recognizing their judgmental attitudes towards the older churches. The second impediment was a reluctance to encourage the Messianic Jewish movement to grow and flourish in genuinely Jewish ways, but that may be very distinct from Evangelicalism (Hocken, 2008). For Pentecostal-Charismatic TJCII participants, the main barrier was learning to relate to parts of the Body of Christ that do not share their approach to spiritual gifts, church leadership, and prophecy. But much progress has been achieved, with Charismatics learning to appreciate how other parts of the church are open to the Spirit in different ways to their own, and to not be arrogant towards them (Hocken, 2008).

What Were the Factors that Led to Change?

Two key factors for change positively related to TJCII already mentioned were the innovation of identificational repentance and the unification of Messianic Jewish leadership. Hocken (2007) also believed that the emergence of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement in the 20th century – including Charismatic Catholics – had paved the way for a unity in the Spirit hitherto unseen in church history. Another aspect of TJCII that made its innovation possible was its narrow focus: 

TJCII is a sharply focused initiative. It is wholly directed toward the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in the one body.” It is “a single-focus initiative”. Just as the TJCII leadership has to focus on this one goal, so it is essential that the TJCII intercessors are focused on this one goal in their intercession. Because TJCII intercessors are drawn from people to whom the Lord has given a real love for the Jewish people, it is natural that participants in TJCII should also support other Israel related causes. The TJCII leadership does not discourage other Israel-related activities in principle, but they must not be confused with TJCII (Hocken 2010). 

Hocken believed that the emergence of the Messianic Jewish movement that presented the Christian churches once again with a Jewish dialogue partner (Hocken, 2007). The Messianic Jewish movement emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a time when young people had more freedom to resist cultural taboos. This included Jews who saw conversion to Christianity as a dramatic option, who developed a sense of “historical mission”, that they were “crossing historical boundaries” (Ariel, 2013). Messianic Jews saw themselves as working towards reconciliation by bringing the truth and beauty of Christianity and Judaism together (Ariel, 2013). Ariel describes the Messianic Jewish movement as an “offspring of the Evangelical community” coming to be accepted by most Evangelicals as a “legitimate part of Evangelical Christianity” (Ariel, 2013). In short, the emergence of the Messianic Jewish movement and its initial acceptance by Evangelicals was a key change factor intimately related to the innovation TJCCII would propose. 

Another factor that created favorable conditions for TJCII was the emergence of anti-suppersessionist theology since the holocaust. Kendall Soulen (2018), who has contributed significantly to TJCII theologically, points out three phases of theological development since the end of World War II: “a period of repentance and awakening (1945-1968), a period of lamentation and experimentation (1968-2000), and a period of maturation and integration (2000 -)”. In the 1950s and 1960s historians working on the roots of antisemitism drew a direct line between Christian teaching and the persecution of Jews for generations (Soulen, 2018). It was at this time that the term superssessionis was coined – that the biblical promises to Israel were now null, abrogated by God because of Israel’s sins, or made irrelevant with Christ’s coming (Soulen, 2018). The current emergence of post-superssessionism since the 2000s is a grouping of similar theologies that affirm both “the irrevocability of God’s covenant with the Jewish people and the universal saving significance of God’s action in Jesus Christ” (Soulen, 2018). These theologies encourage Christians to integrate God’s faithfulness to the Jewish people in their comprehension of all biblical doctrines (2018). According to Catholic theologian Douglas Farrow (2018), the trend towards anti-supersessionism was also connected to the “postmodern elevation of identity politics”.

Another factor that led to change related to Christian-Jewish relations was the Catholic fulfillment modelwhich states that collectively Jews can be considered invincibly ignorant (D’Costa, 2018). The concept is that under Christian supersessionism Jews would have had to accept Jewish extinction as a requirement for Christian practice (D’Costa, 2018). The fulfillment model is another post-holocaust attempt by Gentile Christians to correct antisemitism in the church. This theology states that “the Jewish people who rejected Christ are not rejected by God, who is faithful to his covenantal promises to his people, even when his people are disobedient” (D’Costa, 2018). The fulfillment view makes a distinction between Jews who willfully reject Christ and those who are invincibly ignorant, who may be seen as still under the dispensation of God’s grace via the first covenant (D’Costa, 2018). This softening of Catholic theology towards Judaism represents a development that perhaps paved the way for TJCII to approach Catholics and have a positive hearing. 

Who Were the “Early Adopters” and “Laggards”?

Innovation research has indicated five adopter categories based on the degree to which some members of a system adopt new ideas sooner than others (Rogers, 2003). These categories are innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Rogers, 2003). In most systems, the early adopter category has the highest degree of opinion influence (Rogers, 2003). Early adopters are not so far ahead of the average individual in innovativeness; therefore, they can serve as an example for the greatest number (Rogers, 2003). Innovators are seen as outliers and rash risk takers, and they walk more outside the system in cosmopolite circles. In contrast, early adaptors are more conservative and covey their evaluation of innovations to peers they have close contact with and through interpersonal networks (Rogers, 2003).

The first key group of TJCII early adopters were members of international Evangelical prayer movements. When the first structure for TJCII was being organized in 1996, a team was formed responsible for prayer journeys. The first journeys happened in 1998 and 1999. This team had two primary responsibilities: “(1) to encourage more prayer journeys as appropriate for the expression of repentance for sins against the Jewish expression of the Church and (2) to organize intercessory prayer support for every aspect of the work of TJCII” (Hocken, 2010). The leadership of TJCII stated that the deepest opposition faced is that of the Enemy who feeds the stronghold of God’s rejection of the Jewish people (Hocken 2010). It was in 1999-2000 when TJCII almost collapsed that the depth of spiritual opposition was recognized and a new emphasis on intercession arose (Hocken, 2010). Since that time intercessory groups have been established in 29 countries and teams are present on site during all executive meetings and promotional consultations (Hocken, 2010). 

The key group of TJCII early adopters were members of independent Charismatic churches. Hocken (2007) goes as far as to say that “All those who committed themselves to the TJCII vision had significant Charismatic experience”. According to Hocken (2007), it was the initial TJCII adherents’ “openness to the Holy Spirit and freedom in the Spirit” that made partnership in such a diverse group possible. 

Today TJCII is led by fourteen leaders, seven Jewish and seven Gentile who broadly represent the global churches and movements that profess faith in the gospel of Jesus-Yeshua. TJCII has regional movements in Africa, Asia, Europe, Israel, North America, Latin America, and the Middle East. Since its inception in 1995, the growth of the number of participants has followed Rogers’ (2003) s-shaped curve of adoption and normality. Diffusion experts have discovered that innovation generally follows a curve rising slowly at first, accelerating to a maximum until half of the members of a system adopt, and then growing moderately at a slower rate (Rogers, 2003). It bears reason that increase is gradually slower as less individuals in a system are left to adopt the innovation. Diffusion researchers shows that adoption of a new idea happens through interpersonal networks, spreading like and epidemic (Rogers, 2003). The reliance on interpersonal networks, however, does affect which members in a system have access to innovation due to barriers of status, geography, and other variables (Rogers, 2003). The curve launches when individual testimony activates personal networks in a system, the most crucial phase being the curve from 20 to 30 percent of adoption after which it is often beyond stopping (Rogers, 2003). 

            In relation to TJCII, perhaps the historic churches bear some of the characteristics of Rogers’ laggards. As mentioned earlier, the historic churches first response was that they could not participate in an enterprise that referred to itself as a Council or pretended to convene a universal Church council (Hocken, 2007). This reticence was dealt with successfully by adding toward to the movement’s name. 

            Perhaps another category of laggards in relation to TJCII are progressive Protestants, Evangelicals and Charismatics who initially see the vision as too Zionistic. This is not documented in TJCII literature, and is merely a conjecture on my part. My thinking is that many potential TJCII participants from mainline Protestantism could be initially wary of joining a Jewish-Christian reconciliation movement because of controversies related to biblical prophecy and the land of Israel. However, during the past 3 decades since its inception many progressive Protestants, Evangelicals and Charismatics have joined TJCII. I am not privy to details related to this, but I imagine that in large part this positive result is due to a learning process of diplomacy and deference over divisive issues such as eschatology and Middle eastern politics. 

What are the Implications for Future Cultural Changes?

TJCII has come to a point of recognizing the need to pass the vision on to a new generation, launching the TJCII Now Generation in the early 2000s. The death of Peter Hocken in 2017 and the retirement of several other founding members in recent years spurred the invitation of several younger leaders in their 30s and 40s to a process of courtship for participation in the International Leadership Council (ILC). This represents an effort to close any gap of continued leadership and work towards the vision of TJCII. It has become evident that the fulfillment of this vision may take decades more according to the rate of progress after the initial phase of intense growth. 

            Moving forward, TJCII has the potential to debunk unfair generalizations regarding Christian evangelization and mission. According to missiologist Lamin Sanneh (2009), the common perception of many adherents of non-Christian religions is that an “intrinsic bond” exists between Christianity and “colonial hegemony”. It is understandable that for the Jews in particular the experience of Christian antisemitism has generated deep aversion to any kind of evangelization or mission. However, with its emphasis on humility and the divine calling of people groups TJCII can continue the legacy of many positive streams of Christian mission. In this sense TJCII is not an innovator but takes culturally affirming missions forward. 

In Latin America, early missionaries went to great ends to contextualize and interpret the gospel considering indigenous culture (Sanneh, 2009). Against popular perceptions, these missionaries renounced the idea that embracing Western culture was required for conversion (Sanneh 2009). In Japan, the first Catholic missionaries attempted to impose European culture (Sanneh 2009), but the second phase embraced cultural contextualization as the primary means of reaching the culture (Sanneh, 2009). Missionaries in India preached the gospel using classical Indian sources (Sanneh, 2009). And in Africa, mission can be argued to have given birth to cultural nationalism because of the storm caused by linguistic research (2009). The promotion of the vernacular by missionaries in Africa encouraged feelings of ethnic nationalism, evidence of Christianity’s “built-in grass roots bias” (Sanneh, 2009). In short, the translatability in word, dress, and other cultural artifacts was essential in the rooting and fruitfulness of the church through Christian missions. Perhaps through new open dialogue with Orthodox Jews and the celebration of Messianic Judaism TJCII can counter the caricature of missions as cultural colonization. Perhaps the restoration of the Jewish elder brother can represent the gospel as a vision of cultural reconciliation and embraced diversity.

Diffusion research has shown that organizational leaders at the highest level are not always responsible for innovation (Rogers, 2003). TJCII has been effective in recruiting mid-level and high-level church leaders. However, according to diffusion research, it is also vital to identify innovators who are outliers within their communities and develop dialogue and partnership with them. 

Another important concept regarding the future of TJCII is the homophily-heterophily dichotomy. Homophily is the level of similarity between individuals in communication, heterophily being the degree of difference (Rogers, 2003). Surprisingly, homophily is often a barrier to innovation flow because people who are alike associate in “socially horizontal patterns”, preventing innovations from spreading to members of a system of lower economic status, education, and technical expertise (Rogers, 2003). Therefore, TJCII advocates should be encouraged to persevere in the difficult work of reconciliation diplomacy because although uncomfortable and unfamiliar, the work of crossing barriers is highly effective for diffusion. 

Diffusion research also indicates that in heterophilous interpersonal diffusion networks such as TJCII followers tend to look for opinion leaders “of higher socioeconomic status, with more formal education, greater mass media exposure, more cosmopoliteness, greater contact with change agents, and more innovativeness” (Rogers, 2003). Therefore, in a movement such as TJCII, it is crucial that opinion leaders take conscious steps so that new ideas trickle down to those with less access.

Research also indicates that the future of TJCII will be determined in part on how it uses social media networks. It will be important to nurture interpersonal networks that are interlocking, in which every member interacts with each other. But the movement will also need to foster networks that are radial, in which “a set of individuals is linked to a focal individual but do not interact with each other” (Rogers, 2003). Radial networks are more open, allowing the focal individual to share information with a broader constituency (Rogers, 2003). One of the keys to TJCIIs influence has been its decentralization of leadership and focus of task. As mentioned earlier, TJCII is sharply focused initiative wholly directed toward the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in the one body (Hocken, 2010). TJCII is not a church, and all its participants’ primary ministry engagement is within their particular Christian traditions. Therefore, the challenge for TJCII will be to continue to pass the vision on to individuals who can spread it. This will require the freedom of focal individuals to share information as they are able – a strength of the radial network. At the same time, TJCII will need to maintain the focus of the vision and the unity of its proponents – a strength of the interlocking network. 

Diffusion research shows the surprising strength of weak ties, interactions between people who are not close friends, and not significantly connected, and with whom contact has only been sporadic (Rogers, 2003). These weak ties can be bridge links into the distant cliques of another individual. One of the stated purposes of TJCII moving forward is to raise up a new generation of young ambassadors doing diplomatic diffusion of the one new humanity vision. The strength-of-weak-ties theory (Rogers 2003) is a vital point of encouragement for the hard, slow work of inter-confessional Christian diplomacy required for the type of reconciliation TJCII envisions. 

Lastly, regarding the use of social media, research indicates that physical 

proximity will continue to be important for network links (Rogers, 2003). Social learning theory, observational modeling, and non-verbal communication are all paradigms often lacking in social media and therefore have a negative impact on the fate of adoption and change if they are depended on exclusively (Rogers, 2003).

As TJCII seeks reconciliation in the Body of Messiah, attention should be paid to breakthroughs in the understanding of how cultural change occurs. Research indicates that the predominant Western view is that culture is rooted in individuals’ hearts and minds in the form of values (Hunter, 2010). Together with this is the idea that change comes from courageous individuals with the right values and worldview. As more people adopt certain paradigms, culture is changed (Hunter, 2010). A different perspective is that culture changes not through the veracity of ideas but by the level to which they are embedded in influential institutions, networks, and symbols (Hunter, 2010). This view holds that individual hearts and minds don’t dictate culture as much as culture influences the lives of individuals (Hunter, 2010). Cultural change occurs through patrons sponsoring intellectuals who propagate alternatives (Hunter, 2010). Such elites tend to be followed by creative types, poets, artists, and communicators that form narratives and symbols. This phenomenon is what popularizes new cultural visions (Hunter, 2010). 

I find the alternative approach compelling, and therefore believe that identifying networks of influence is key for reconciliation initiatives. The traditional Christian approach to changing culture has been coercive, having different expressions such as the Christian Right, Christian Left, and Neo-Anabaptists (Hunter, 2010). It is arguably because of these coercive approaches that the church lacks influence and is absent from key areas of society (Hunter, 2010). Reconciliation initiatives that seek to unite representatives of different Christian traditions must guard against envisioning the flourishing of Christ’s kingdom as “framed by the particularities” of the distinct worldviews of these traditions (Hunter 2010). Those on the Christian Left see history as a continuous struggle to realize a myth of equality and community, optimistic about their church’s move towards progressive values. For their part, the Anabaptists communicate a message of “anger, disparagement, and negation” (Hunter, 2010). Anabaptists believe that the church should be a community of contrast that challenges the ways of the world. They do not seek to change the world by engaging the spheres of society, but by being a worshipping community, observing the sacraments, and forming disciples (Hunter, 2010). Lastly, members of the Christian Right frame discussions of power in political terms, thus removing the discussion from everyday life (Hunter, 2010). In this way the Christian Right avoids the challenges of daily life by focusing attention upon inaccessible elites and institutions (Hunter, 2010). In diffusing the vision of reconciliation initiatives, much care must be taken to navigate these polarizing views to cultural transformation as applied to the culture of the church. 

Reconciliation initiatives must take care not to be drawn into different extremes in Christian views of cultural transformation. The Christian church has often oscillated between the following paradigms of cultural engagement: defensive against, relevant to, or pure from (Hunter, 2010). I would suggest the more helpful paradigm of relating to the world through a “dialectic of affirmation and antithesis” (Hunter, 2010). By this approach, we can simultaneously partner with God’s common grace in making culture while recognizing that this work is not salvific (Hunter, 2010). Christians need to embrace the call to leadership in the paradoxical model of Christ through faithful presence (Hunter, 2010). By faithful presence, I refer to a covenantal commitment to the flourishing of the world around us (Hunter, 2010). This means reconciliation initiatives should foster flourishing for all, in contrast to a truncated gospel that merely persuades non-Christians to convert to go to heaven (Hunter, 2010). Reconciliation initiatives should recognize that establishing justice and righteousness are secondary to the primary good of God Himself – his worship and honor. At the same time, reconciliation initiatives must remember that God has broken the sovereignty of the world’s institutions. Thus, such unity movements should seek the betterment of this world and its institutions (Hunter, 2010).

Conclusion

            As a participant in TJCII, I hope to be able to share some of the lessons of this research with my co-laborers. As someone in their late 40s, I see the need to raise up a new generation of reconcilers who embrace the one new humanity vision of Ephesians 2:14-18. I have personally experienced the amazing unity and healing the Holy Spirit can do through repentance and dialogue. I also see the one new humanity vision as a reconciliation motif that can reshape understanding of the gospel in a post-Christian West. And I’m hopeful that this vision can heal the wounds of Christian imperialism that created a pattern of cultural stratification whose consequences are still felt in the Global South. 

References

Ariel, Y. S. (2013). An unusual relationship: Evangelical Christians and Jews. NYU Press. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1187370. 217, 217, 219

Baruch HaShem Messianic Synagogue. (n.d.). Baruch HaShem Messianic Synagogue. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://bhsdallas.org/

Dawson, J. (1989). Taking Our Cities for God: How to Break Spiritual Strongholds. Creation House; Atla Religion Database with AtlaSerials. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000131965&authtype=sso&custid=s6133893&site=ehost-live&custid=s6133893

Dawson, J. (1994). Healing America’s wounds (Upper Level BR526 .D38 1994). Regal Books; Biola Library Catalog. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat09700a&AN=blc.oai.edge.biola.folio.ebsco.com.fs00001149.2ebf117a.5b76.54f3.b725.f16061a2ea9b&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893

D’Costa, G. (2019). The Mystery of Israel: Jews, Hebrew Catholics, Messianic Judaism, the Catholic Church, and the Mosaic Ceremonial Laws. Nova et Vetera, 16(3), 939–977. ProjectMUSE. https://doi.org/10.1353/nov.2018.0067. 11,11,25, 25

Farrow, D. (2018). Jew and Gentile in the Church Today. Nova et Vetera, 16(3), 979–993. 980

Hocken, P. (2007). TOWARD JERUSALEM COUNCIL II. Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 16(1), 3–17. Academic Search Premier. 8, 8, 5, 5, 7-8, 8, 8

Hocken, P. (2009). The challenges of the Pentecostal, Charismatic and Messianic Jewish movements: The tensions of the spirit. Ashgate; Biola Library ebooks. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat08936a&AN=bio.ocn432995805&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893. 8, 9, 16, 16, 17, 17, 17

Hocken, P. (2010). Handbook For TJCII Intercessors. TJCII, Dallas. 5, 5, 5, 6

Hocken, Peter D. (2021). The Glory and the Shame. Wipf & Stock Publishers. 

Hunter, J. Davidson (2010). To Change the World: the Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. Oxford Unity Press. 6, 6, 15, 44, 45, 77, 78, 99, 95, 111, 165, 161, 193, 193, 223-4, 214, 215-6, 240, 242, 244, 264

Ioniţă, A. (2017). The Increasing Social Relevance of the Catholic Liturgical and Theological Reform Regarding Judaism (Nostra aetate 4): An Orthodox Point of View. Review of Ecumenical Studies Sibiu, 9(2), 258–269. E-Journals.

New International Version. (2011).  BibleGateway.com.http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/#booklist

Rogers, E. M. (n.d.). (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. Retrieved from https://platform.virdocs.com/read/1882033/7/#/4/64/2,/1:0,/1:0. 23, 23, 87, 94, 94, 179, 184, 184, 139, 139, 172, 216, 217, 219, 219, 219, 211, 211, 212, 212, 212, 224, 276, 276, 276, 258, 258, 259, 259, 260, 261, 259

Psalm133 (Director). (2017, July 6). Ecumenical Symposium on Messianic Jews in Rome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mbWXogtZdE

Sanneh, Lamin. (2009) Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture (American Society of Missiology). Orbis Books. Kindle Edition. Loc. 2293, 2293, 2247, 1365, 1365, 2969, 3022, 3089, 3103, 3121, 3280, 3423, 4336

Soulen, R. Kendall (2018). Christian Theology Since the Holocaust. American Baptist Quarterly, 37(4), 405–418. Supplemental Index.

Towards Jerusalem Council II (2010). Toward Jerusalem Council II Vision, Origin and Documents. Retrieved November 24, 2023, from https://www.tjcii.org/resources/. 7,7, 7, 8, 33, 33, 34, 34, 36, 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 13, 6, 4

by daviddawson462742281

The Science of Being Open-Minded: Can Secular Research Inform Christian Mission?

What Does “Open-Minded” Mean to Me as a Missionary?

As a missiological researcher, do I look primarily to practitioners or theoreticians as my primary sources, related to my areas of interest? Missiology involves sociological, qualitative research, which focuses on people with boots on the ground implementing the ideas that others only articulate and analyze. As a missionary completing 30 years of service – most of those oversees – I have done several research projects focused on practice and practitioners. Currently I’m pursuing a PhD in Intercultural Studies, which I believe is the best fit for research that is continuous with my career so far. However, in recent years most of the scholarly work I’ve been exposed to has been theological rather than sociological. I now realize that, even as a missionary, I have become out of touch with the development of missiology over the past 10 years. I have drifted away from practical theology, which some use as a definition of missiology, towards theory. I don’t feel that the time I’ve dedicated to theory regarding my area of missionary service has been unfruitful. However, at 47 years old, I want to build from what hopefully I can contribute as someone who has been a practitioner and who deeply believes in the work of those on the field. I don’t mean to falsely dichotomize practice and theory, but these are the best terms I have to convey my experience and perception. 

Baehr on Open Mindedness and Moreland on Transformation of the Christian Mind

I will refer to open-mindedness as “OM” from here on. In Jason Baehr’s The Structure of Open-Mindedness, he critiques the conflict (OM) model is since (OM) can be demonstrated by persons who are impartial or unresolved about the matter in question (2011, p. 199). He also rejects the adjudication (OM) model because the evaluation of a debate in relation to which persons are impartial or unresolved may treat cases that do not involve disputes as well as cases that do not involve logical estimations or appraisals (2011, p. 199). Baer’s posits that (OM) plays an enabling and expediting role in relation to other intellectual virtues because (OM) permits the person who has it to use these virtues and use them well (2011, p. 206). In three propositions Baehr explores possible articulations of the value of (OM). First, emphasizing (OM) as intellectually virtuous in case it is helpful for a person in a determined situation to ascertain the truth (Baehr 2011, p. 208). Second, emphasizing (OM) as intellectually virtuous in case it is reasonable for a person in a determined situation to believe that it may be helpful for ascertaining truth (Baehr 2011, p. 209). And third, emphasizing (OM) as intellectually virtuous only if it is reasonable for a person in a determined situation that it may be helpful for ascertaining truth (Baehr, 2011, 210). Baehr concludes by proposing that if a person has compelling evidence in support of a proposition, is trustworthy in his/her judgements (and of this he/she is aware) and possesses compelling motives to reject contrary evidence to said proposition, then in such circumstances it may not be wise to be (OM) to ascertain truth (Baehr, 2011, p. 211-212). 

In Love Your God with All Your Mind, J.P. Moreland (1997) argues that Scripture declares a vision of discipleship that requires the development of the Christian mind (p. 43). Moreland (1997) describes reason as the powers by which knowledge is attained and beliefs accounted for (p. 43). Moreland (1997) establishes that the doctrine of revelation does not negate reason, because it includes statements that are comprehensible and impartially true (p. 45). The work of the Spirit, it is argued, is not to do the work of comprehending Scripture, but to convict of sin, to comfort the soul, and to lead to real application (Moreland, 1997, p. 46). It is up to the believer to apply his cognitive abilities to discern the intention of a passage of Scripture (Moreland, 1997, p. 47). Moreland (1997) states that Christians’ apathy and timidity in evangelism is due in large part to lack of authoritative knowledge of the Scriptures (p. 52). And it is because the church preaches rather than teaches logically in the public square that it has lost influence (Moreland, 1997, p. 56). Even Christians going to college in the West have succumbed to the idea that an education primarily serves an economic rather than a character and intellect building one (Moreland, 1997, p. 59). And a concept of faith as detached from evidence or trustworthiness of propositions and the readiness to act upon it has resulted in a distortion of faith as consisting in emotion or imagination (Moreland, 1997, p. 61). 

My analysis is that Baehr’s hypothesis regarding (OM) is timely considering post-colonialism, post-mission, and post-evangelistic paradigms which are highly influential today. The skepticism with which all attempts to engage culture with a message such as the gospel surrounds the majority of Christian missionary and evangelistic efforts. When a Westerner travels to a foreign land to share in word and deed from his religious convictions, even if he attempts employ (OM) this can be construed as instrumental. The cultural sensitivity, anthropological study, and translation efforts can be criticized as being different means for the same ends as the abhorrent Christian colonizers of the majority world during the Era of Exploration. Moreland exhorts the church to, instead of developing ever more complex means to appease postmodern sensibilities towards cultural colonization, it should focus on seeking understanding. When the church sincerely and passionately seeks truth and bears witness in the world with the Holy Spirit’s condition of sin and prophetic witness, it will gain a new hearing. And this hearing will surpass anything conjured up by reworking of the gospel message to conform to pluralistic and relativistic values. Pluralism and the nuance of truth are not foreign to Scripture, but they are not the foundation from which we speak, we speak from the foundation of a transformed mind and a heart convicted and directed by the experience of the Holy Spirit. 

How I Anticipate the Need for Open-Mindedness in My Research

I believe that I will need to be open minded first in relation to the pioneer generation involved in the paradigm of reconciliation ministry that I will be researching (ONH: One New Humanity, see Eph. 2:14-18). Since the research topic I have chosen relates to Christian-Jewish relations, the topic of Zionism comes to bear. 

How can the ONH vision be promoted in groups where some hold to conservative and literal hermeneutics regarding biblical prophecy about Israel and the land, as well as others with differing views? One of the motives behind my study is the desire to discover what lessons can be learned from ONH practitioners in my European context. The need for this knowledge is primarily to be able to articulate it better for a new generation of practitioners and see them multiply it with the most reproduceable model possible. One way of promoting the ONH vision is through diplomacy that seeks to attract senior leaders of major Christian traditions. This model has been effective over the past 30 years and a new generation of ONH ambassadors is needed. What are the key insights from those who have pioneered such diplomacy, and what innovation is needed?

In my own efforts to promote the ONH vision, I recognize the challenge of articulating it to Christian leaders of my own generation and younger. Many of the leaders I interact with from this group are more liberal and averse to Zionism and any mixture of faith and politics in ways they deem Constantinian, colonialist, or imperialist. I feel this debate represents a major disconnect between many Evangelical, Mainline Protestant, and Charismatic (non-Pentecostal) young leaders. Some of them see repentance initiatives related to the Jewish people as problematic because of the political implications regarding Palestine. Some Christian leaders have endorsed a minimalist Zionism, such as Gavin D’Costa (D’Costa, 2019), which I won’t elaborate on here. The point is, one of the challenges related to the ONH vision is for Christians on either end of the Zionism debate to be open minded in their interactions. If the goal is to see unity in the body of Messiah as a motif for general human reconciliation, we should pay attention to lessons from (OM) research.  

Lastly, the people group I have most grown compassionate for and bewildered about are the Messianic Jews, also central to my research topic. They stand in the middle of a Judaism and a Christianity that either outright reject them or don’t know what to do with them. My father has been involved in ministry with Messianic Jews over 30 years and often shared his passion with me and my siblings. However, it has only been in the past ten years of my own missionary service that I have developed a passion for Christian-Jewish relations. The series of events that has led me into reconciliation work involving Messianic Jews has been a wonderful surprise. I hope that I can be open minded to the Messianic Jews who come from such a place of rejection and exclusion, and a deep distrust. None of these things are inherently familiar to me as a white, Protestant, North American. 

References

Baehr, Jason (2011). The Structure of Open-Mindedness. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY. Volume 41, Number 2, June 2011, pp. 191-214 

D’Costa, G. (2019). Catholic doctrines on the Jewish people after Vatican II. (Upper Level BM535 .D36 2019; First edition.). Oxford University Press; Biola Library Catalog. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat09700a&AN=blc.oai.edge.biola.folio.ebsco.com.fs00001149.0bae66ce.b7e6.5291.884e.dae355801f6c&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893

Moreland, J.P. (1997). Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. NavPress. 

by daviddawson462742281

How Symbols and Elites make Cultural Reform Acceptable 

Abstract

In this article I provide an analysis and critique of Nicolai Petro’s A Tale of Two Regions: Novgorod and Pskov as Models of Symbolic Development. I integrate insights from other developmental studies and attempt some implications for my own ministry and context. I also attempt to articulate some biblical insights gained through the study. 

Symbolic Shortcuts as a Means for Public Acceptance of Reform and the Role of Local Elites in its Propagation

The Role of Elites, Cultural Symbols, and Cultural Myths in Novgorod and Pskov

Nicolai Petro states that the intent of his study of the Russian cities of Pskov and Novgorod is to demonstrate that “the cultural symbols and myths adopted by regional elites can be a powerful force in shaping local development strategies” (Petro 2006, p. 370). This study contrasts the growth of Novgorod versus the stagnation of Pskov. In Novgorod, the influence of pragmatic individual political leaders has lead to development. While in Pskov, the influence of bureaucratic and unstable political parties led to stagnation (Petro 2006, p. 370). In Novgorod, a strategy for development prioritized growing the shared resources rather than simply extracting the maximum in the short term – a focus on future benefits (Petro 2006, p. 371). By contrast, in the other three pilot regions the focus tended to be limited to distribution of their existing resources (Petro 2006, p. 371). 

Petro offers a compelling description of myths that proved relevant to the positive developments in Novgorod. The positively useful myth in Novgorod was its cultural heritage as a center of commerce. In comparison, the study shows that the cultural self-conception of Pskov as a bulwark against outside influence proved to have a negative influence regarding development. In his book To Change the World (2010) J. Davidson Hunter describe such phenomenon as myths that are pre-reflective frameworks of meaning, understandings of the world “so taken for granted that is seems utterly obvious” (2010, p. 32). 

We must ask ourselves what sociological lens was used by the researchers cited in Petro’s study. Some of the research used focused on “the impact of Western funds on democratic development” (Petro 2006, p. 372). Petro also explores Western attitudes towards cultural development drawn from conferences organized by the World Bank in Washington D.C. and Harvard University’s Academy for International and Area Studies (Petro 2006, p. 378,379). I detect a level of Western bias in Petro’s study, even as he endeavored to encourage the value of local culture. In the end, the idea that helpful goods from the West could benefit the Russian context was a general pretext. Personally, I have no problem with the notion that one culture can benefit another if it accepts the mutuality of this proposition. 

Petro’s study demonstrates how elites in Novgorod were able to find a voice in their cultural context and influence key points of leverage productively for the community. I’m impressed by the Novgorod example as it represents the power of a society finding its voice in a way conducive to positive change. Elites in Novgorod shaped a narrative by giving space for people to narrate their own story. In other words, the elites understood the strategic value of giving their community symbols by which innovation would most likely be appropriated. 

Looking at the phenomenon that led to the differences in these two Russian cities, we can use Hunter’s two lenses of cultural change. Applying the common view, the cultures of these cities are understood as rooted in individuals’ hearts and minds in the form of values (Hunter 2010, p. 6). According to this lens, the cultures of Novgorod and Pskov are the sum of the majority population’s values and behavior (Hunter 2010, p. 6). By this account, the positive change in Novgorod resulted from courageous individuals whose values and worldview were productive. When enough people had adopted these values, culture is changed (Hunter 2010, p. 15). 

Inversely, if we employ Hunter’s alternative view, the positive changes in the culture of Novgorod were not generated by the truthfulness of ideas, but by their rootedness in powerful institutions, networks, and symbols (2010, p. 44). The opinion leaders in Novgorod were the society elites such as individual political leaders. But Petro’s study also showed the influence of existing institutions such as the local university as well as new institutions such as the NGOs (Petro 2006, p. 376). 

The quote from Novgorod’s Governor Prusak that there is “no need to invent artificial ideas, no need to mechanically transfer the American dream onto Russian soil” (Prusak 2006, p. 376) exemplifies the sensitivity to dynamics of local receptivity to outside ideas. Prusak affirms that Novgorod’s history reveals a city combining “democracy, free market relations, and other accomplishments of civilization, with national traditions (2006, p. 376). This type of discourse exemplifies Hunter’s thesis that culture changes through patrons sponsoring intellectuals who propagate alternatives (2010, p. 77). Demonstrating Hunter’s hypothesis, elites in Novgorod symbolized, narrated, and popularized new cultural visions (Hunter 2010, p. 78). In Novgorod’s case these elites were political leaders, university professors, religious leaders, and NGO workers. Prusak can contextualize democracy as something belonging to the Novgorod myth as opposed to a uniquely Western concept. Prusak was speaking to a wounded and demoralized people in post-Soviet Russia. As US-Americans, we often think of democracy as unique product and possession of our culture. Democracy was arriving as a dominant paradigm in Russia, and finding the right narrative to embrace it was key (Petro 2006, p. 369). From this study, it is evident that local Russian leaders had much influence. This contradicts the common Western perception that Putin is all powerful, an example of how our own cultural narratives distort notions of change and development. 

Conversely, in Pskov the direction of culture was also determined by elites, but in a different direction and with differing results. The elites of both Novgorod and Pskov made choices based on distinct self-images of their regions – regional myths that shaped social expectations (Petro 2006, p. 374). In Pskov the influence of political parties was greater than that of charismatic individual political leaders. Priority was given to existing institutions over more recent ones, and the establishment of new institutions was not prioritized (Petro 2006, p. 373). The openness to new institutions in Novgorod was demonstrated in partnerships with NGOs encouraged by local elites who were able to find common ground with the social agenda of their community (Petro 2006, p. 372). Openness to foreign investment was a distinct source of jobs with employment of factory workers by international companies reaching 25% (Petro 2006, p. 373). 69% percent of the NGO leaders in Novgorod said they “trusted in government officials”, in contrast to only 27% in Pskov (Petro 2006, p. 377).

Comparison of Cultural Adjustment and Cultural Congruence Approaches to Development

The comparison between advocates of cultural adjustment versus cultural congruence seems to favor the latter considering the Novgorod phenomenon (Petro 2006, p. 378). The idea that traditional culture is the primary impediment to development contradicts the evidence that positive narratives were developed based on Novgorod’s past (Petro 2006, p. 378). In contrast, the cultural congruence model that sees the task of development analysts as connecting transformation to traditional cultural values receives much evidence from Petro’s case study (Petro 2006, p. 378). The Harvard conference Petro refers to concluded that “traditional cultural patterns are the source of poverty, and the central task of development should be to remove them” (2006, p. 379). I find this perspective to be a clear example of Western bias. 

It is significant that Petro cites Western development practitioners rather than scholars as arguing that “only developmental practices congruent with strongly held local norms, beliefs, and practices could succeed” (2006, p. 380). According to these practitioners, just as one needs to ask a farmer to know the type of soil, culture must be considered before planting (Petro 2006, p. 380). This approach encourages analysts to “identify components of their culture that can be built upon to have greater synergy in the workplace as a result of working with, rather than against, widely held cultural norms” (Petro 2006, p. 380). Petro’s argument is compelling that when this happens the members of a culture become the executors of change (Petro 2006, p. 380). 

In his book Diffusion of Innovations, E.M. Rogers describes early adopters as integrated into the social system, having highest level of influence in most systems, and breaking down majority reticence towards innovation (2003, p. 219). This concurs with Petro’s affirmation that “what determines the success of reform efforts is not the actual historical antecedents, but their interpretation by the current elite “(2006, p. 375). 

Perhaps the starkest and impacting statement in Petro’s study for me was the following: 

“The fatal flaw of cultural adjustment is that the aspects of culture it seeks to transform are very often the same ones that people cling to in times of change: the comfort and stability of traditional values. As a strategy for economic and social development, therefore, cultural adjustment is doomed to a hostile reception, making implementation a never-ending struggle. So long as development efforts continue to emphasize the need to adjust people’s attitudes to suit develop- mental models, rather than the other way around, this struggle will continue” (2006, p. 380)

This is a stark contrast to the US-American mentality just working harder, trying harder and you’ll win…you’ll get there. Petro argues that cultural adjustment lashes out at traditional social agreement and sabotages the material politicians depend on to gain authenticity (2006, p. 381). However, the cultural congruence approach is also imperfect because it offers no clear metrics to gage change (Petro 2006, p. 381). Petro suggests the solution of engaging traditional culture as a means for transformation. This approach fosters support from locals while simultaneously seeking out means for outside researchers to evaluate the administration of this approach (Petro 2006, p. 381). 

Applying the Cultural Congruence Approach to my Context

How can the cultural congruence approach could be applied to my ecumenical and reconciliation work in Europe – in particular Latin Europe where I live. In secular, nominally Catholic nations such as Italy, Spain, and my home Portugal, how can someone from a minority Christian tradition such as me engage traditional culture as a means for transformation? The danger of colonizing and paternalistic presuppositions is inherent in questions from an outsider attempting to bring transformation to a local context. Acknowledging the fact of my own researcher bias, I ask what cultural components in my context could be engaged? And what potential do these cultural components have for synthesis and partnership with productive innovations from abroad? The ambiguity of whether these innovations are in fact foreign or merely perceived as such should be considered as well. 

A prior question is what are the innovations I as an outsider would prioritize for the Latin European context? Related to my work, I would choose the vision of the one new man (Eph. 2:14-18) as expressed by the Towards Jerusalem II movement. TJCII claims that the divided Gentile churches find common identity in relation to the novel Messianic Jewish movement that emerged in the 1960s (Hocken & Schönborn 2016, 133). A second tenet of TJCII is that the reconciliation of Jewish and Gentile Jesus-believers is the key to healing of all subsequent divisions in the church (Hocken & Schönborn 2016, 134). The reasoning proceeds that this key has been ignored during the past two-thousand years of church history and is the explanation for the failure of ecumenical attempts at comprehensive restoration of Christian unity. This is a lofty claim which I do not affirm personally, preferring to claim that this is a missing piece in Christian ecumenism, not necessarily the missing piece. A third claim of the TJCII movement is that the original one new humanity vision entailed a Gentile majority that would have honored a Jewish minority scattered from their land. This type of Jewish-Gentile ekklesia would have mitigated against the triumphalism that characterized subsequent de facto Christian history (Hocken & Schönborn 2016, 140). This triumphalism has been expressed in a self-serving church who sees its mission as subjecting the other to itself (Hocken 2009, p. 106). 

Returning to the question of what cultural components could be engaged that could work together with the innovations I promote, I offer some suggestions. First is the existence of public repentance initiatives such as the National Memorial Day for Victims of the Portuguese Inquisition, March 31st. The departments of religious science in Portuguese universities are a place where these matters are researched in depth but perhaps not in connection with ecumenical possibilities. I have been developing relationships with academics in the area and pretend to continue these efforts. Also, the Catholic pilgrimages of Nossa Senhora de Fátima and Santiago de Campostella represent, in my opinion, the most vibrant source of religious life in the Iberian Peninsula. These pilgrimages have historically attracted individuals based on supplication and gratefulness, but also repentance and penitence. The latter phenomenon could be linked to a desire for healing of the historic wounds against the Jewish people during the Inquisition, as well as the healing of the land according to theologies of priestly cleansing and identificational repentance (Hocken 2004, 1). I have been partnering with ecumenical ministries to the pilgrims in Southern Spain and am inspired by Petro’s research to develop inroads to the pilgrimage phenomenon in Portugal. 

Conclusion

Petro claims that the Novgorod model indicates that significant cultural symbols may have a vital place in encouraging the undertaking of social change by the general public (2006, p. 382). The study of these two Russian cities gives evidence that when confronted by external sources of innovation, people look for familiar symbols that provide an alternative route which best fits their cultural self-image (Petro 2006, p. 382). Symbolic shortcuts that best fit the cultural identity are received while those considered too exotic are resisted (Petro 2006, p. 382). The study of these Russian cities resulted in the following analysis: 

“Public acceptance of the interpretations of key symbols proposed by the elite conferred an aura of legitimacy on the reformist policy agenda that accompanied them. This aura created a reservoir of social support that political leaders could tap into to implement their agenda more rapidly and effectively” (Petro 2006, p. 383)

Considering the compelling evidence given in Petro’s case study, I am motivated to focus not only on the organic development of relationships with the Catholic Portuguese neighbors on my street. As daunting as the task can feel for an Evangelical missionary in a majority Catholic context, I am convinced of the strategic urgence of identifying key elites in my context and engaging with them. The development of relationship in this context will undoubtedly require time and dedication which conflicts with the expectations of Western missionary sending churches and agencies. However, the long-term fruit related to the innovations I came to encourage in Latin Europe require an understanding of how change occurs. Part of my job will inevitably be not only to apply the principles of the cultural congruence approach myself, but to educate my Western backers. Only this way will the type of work I am doing make sense to my predominantly North American partners. More importantly, I’m convinced that only this way will my work produce positive development. 

References

Hocken, P., & Schönborn, C. (2016). Azusa, Rome, and Zion: Pentecostal Faith, Catholic Reform, and Jewish Roots. Wipf and Stock Publishers; Biola Library ebooks. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat08936a&AN=bio.ocn957436514&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893 Links to an external site.

Hocken, Peter (2004). Repenting for the Sins of the Past to Heal the Wounds of History. The European Catholic Charismatic Renewal Info-Letter (Euccril), January 20th, Issue 25

Hocken, P. (2009). The challenges of the Pentecostal, Charismatic and Messianic Jewish movements: The tensions of the spirit. Ashgate; Biola Library ebooks. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat08936a&AN=bio.ocn432995805&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893

Hunter, J. Davidson (2010). To Change the World: the Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. Oxford Unity Press. 

Rogers, E. M. (n.d.). (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. Retrieved from https://platform.virdocs.com/read/1882033/7/#/4/64/2,/1:0,/1:0

Petro, N. N. (2006). A tale of two regions:Novgorod and Pskov as models of symbolic development. In L. E. Harrison & P. L. Berger (Eds.), Developing Cultures: Case Studies. Routledge; Developing Cultures Case Studies.pdf. https://epdf.pub/developing-cultures-case-studies.html